All articles tagged with #retractions
A Nature feature argues that retracting papers due to honest errors should be normalized to protect the scientific record, sharing stories like Nicole King’s Science retraction, noting incentives such as the Ctrl-Z Award, and emphasizing supportive, calm collaboration among researchers and journals to reduce stigma and encourage transparent corrections.
A chemistry researcher had 35 papers retracted within 24 months for a mix of issues including major errors in analyses, compromised peer review, image-related problems, and citation manipulation. Most retractions appeared in Elsevier- and Royal Society of Chemistry–published journals, placing the scientist on Retraction Watch’s leaderboard. Coauthors have defended the work as a matter of presentation rather than fraudulent data.
Retraction Watch’s Weekend Reads roundup recaps a week of publishing scrutiny: headlines about a researcher’s alleged poisoning obfuscation, plagiarism accusations, fake references, and dozens of retractions due to compromised peer review; it also highlights AI-related issues in arXiv’s new rules (endorsements for first-time posters and English submissions) and a broad set of discussions on replication, ethics, and data use. The post notes the Hijacked Journal Checker with 400+ entries, the Retraction Watch Database surpassing 63,000 retractions, COVID-era retractions over 640, and 50 mass resignations, and invites donations to support the work.
Two large analyses find that critical posts on X often appear before scientific papers are retracted, with 8.3% of retracted studies having a critical tweet before retraction versus 1.5% of non-retracted ones; negative sentiment and the use of red-flag terms correlated with faster retractions, though causality isn’t proven. The work highlights post-publication commentary as a tool to flag potential issues, while cautioning that online critiques can reflect biases and require verification before action.
A Bengaluru economist discovers her study was stolen and published by others, with authorship slots allegedly sold on Telegram for roughly $165–$200. The misappropriated paper, later indexed by a different journal, prompts plagiarism concerns when editors find it nearly identical to her rejected draft. The incident underscores how paper mills operate, the push for retractions, and ongoing investigations by publishers, even as some listed authors deny involvement.
A finance professor in Ireland, Brian Lucey, had 12 papers retracted from journals he edited by Elsevier, citing editorial conflicts, though Lucey disputes the grounds for retraction and highlights widespread similar practices in finance and economics publishing. The retractions, which involved highly cited articles, have sparked debate about editorial ethics and conflicts of interest in academic publishing.
The article summarizes recent developments in scientific publishing, including NEJM launching a new public health report rival, a former NIH official's paper receiving an expression of concern, and a study revealing that 1 in 5 chemists have intentionally added errors during peer review, highlighting ongoing issues of misconduct and integrity in research.
A study highlights the rapid growth of research fraud driven by paper mills, brokers, and predatory publishers, outpacing corrective measures like retractions, and calls for global systemic changes to combat this issue effectively.
Frontiers is retracting 122 articles across five journals after uncovering a network of authors and editors involved in unethical practices like citation manipulation and undisclosed conflicts of interest, linked to over 4,000 articles across multiple publishers, highlighting ongoing issues with research integrity in academic publishing.
The article summarizes recent developments in scientific publishing, including the retraction of the 'arsenic life' paper after 15 years, numerous COVID-19 paper retractions, and ongoing issues with misconduct, political interference, and peer review challenges across various journals and research fields.
A French chemist at CNRS has been banned from research for two years due to repeated breaches of research integrity, including fabricating data and manipulating images in over 20 studies, leading to multiple paper retractions and calls for serious corrective actions.
This week's Retraction Watch highlights include issues with hijacked journals, allegations of research misconduct, and the ongoing challenges in peer review and data integrity. Notable stories cover the surprising history of abstracts, the broken state of peer review, and controversies in bee waggle dance data. The Retraction Watch Database now includes over 49,000 retractions and tools like the Hijacked Journal Checker to combat fraudulent publications.
The prestigious Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has retracted seven studies following allegations of image manipulation and errors by a scientist blogger. The controversy has raised questions about scientific integrity and the pressures in research that could lead to misconduct. The retractions, primarily focused on multiple myeloma research, have prompted concerns about the impact on the field and the reputation of the institute. The episode highlights ongoing debates about scientific integrity and the need for swift action to correct the scientific record.
A Harvard Medical School affiliate is planning to retract six studies and correct 31 papers due to an ongoing investigation into several senior cancer researchers and administrators. The investigation involves more than 50 papers, with requests for retractions and corrections sent to journals. The institute has not determined whether research misconduct occurred, and the CEO and President of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dr. Laurie Glimcher, is among those being investigated. Additionally, Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned following plagiarism allegations and a congressional hearing, and the institute is reviewing an unknown number of other papers with possible issues.
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute is retracting six papers and correcting 31 others authored by four senior researchers following allegations of data manipulation. The corrections come after claims of misconduct against DFCI President and CEO Laurie H. Glimcher ’72, Executive Vice President and COO William C. Hahn ’87, Senior Vice President for Experimental Medicine Irene M. Ghobrial, and Harvard Medical School professor Kenneth C. Anderson. The institute's research integrity officer stated that they are committed to a culture of accountability and integrity and are examining every inquiry about research integrity fully.